Talk:Shelby
Her name I think we have a problem, gentleman, and I might be to blame. There is no canon reference to her first name. As far as I'm aware, the name "Elizabeth" was only used in the New Frontier novels. I think I might've wikilinked this somewhere and its become a frequent reference. BTW, I agree that the DS9 fleet Captain Shelby is a different person than Commander Shelby from BoBW.. *The foreign translations refer to Captain Shelby as 'him' *Commander Shelby is part of the quite popular New Fronter series, she was not yet a Captain by the time period of the episode. I realize its a non-canon source, but it is one that is important to a lot of fans (so much so, in fact, that Peter David spent several passages of one of the NF books explaining a reference to the other Captain Shelby, in order to keep confusion to a minimum. So, I'm thinking a disambiguation (or a partial diambig?) --Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:28, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST) : I can agree with the use of "Elizabeth", probably... I thought that had been established, but I was wrong. However, I strongly disagree with the she/he issue. I wish I could point to a reference, but I specifically recall an interview where Ron Moore stated that the mention of "Captain Shelby" was supposed to be a reference to the character from BoBW. I'll try to dig it up. -- Dan Carlson 16:45, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST) : I also strongly object to using New Frontier as ANY part of the argument, because the novels are utterly non-canon. The argument that Shelby can't be the captain of the Sutherland because she's supposed to be the first officer of the Excalibur is completely baseless according to the canon policy! -- Dan Carlson 16:55, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::That's true, but archivists here are just as likely to disregard data derived from producer & creator intentions sometimes: are we supposed to take all of the writer's opinions, musings and afterthoughts as canon? this is a pretty wide gray area. I'm not suggesting we disregard Moore's comment because of New Frontier, but I imagined we could keep our reference vague, so as to not contradict NF, and also because not all of the writer's intentions translate as canonically sensible. I don't believe its a huge issue if we combine the articles, I'm just pointing out the precedents -- Captain Mike K. Bartel : Then let me use a different argument. When, aside from inconsequential redshirts, has there ever been two characters with the same name in Star Trek? Never! Therefore, the precedent points towards them being the same character. Both of these articles should be combined under "Shelby". -- Dan Carlson 17:32, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST) : Well, there's been a "Lieutenant Janeway" mentioned as a crewmember aboard the Enterprise-D... An acquaintance found the reference for me. Many thanks to Bond! :-D : Well.... my intent when I wrote the line was that this was indeed the same Shelby from BOBW. I thought it was a cool reference to throw in for the fans, but I had completely forgotten that John Ordover & Co. had very specifically and very politely asked us if we had any intention of ever using this character again and we (including me) had said, "No way -- do what you want with her." This very salient fact was pointed out to me after the show had aired and I had a rather sheepish conversation with Paula Block over in licensing and with John via e-mail explaining what had happened. Since I only used Shelby's last name in the episode, you're free to look at this either way -- it's really her or it's someone else with the same last name (it's a big fleet, after all). http://www.trekweb.com/RonDMoore/Ron_Moore_12_5_97.txt So, I guess that settles nothing, eh? Heh... -- Dan Carlson 15:08, 2 Jul 2004 (CEST) I might be inclined to revamp the article to another configuration someday, based on that. However, I think my last edit worded it so it could be taken either way also. --Captain Mike K. Bartel :Let's remember the legal implication of the term "officially licensed"- it refers to a license granted by the owner of copyrighted and trademarked materials, for their limited use by another person or organization. :"Officially licensed" doesn't mean it's "approved as canon"; it just means that someone (in this case, Peter David) obtained lawful permission from Paramount to use trademarks (such as the title "Star Trek"). :I think we can safely eliminate the "contradiction" by stating that the "conflict" is between a canon source (the episodes in question) along with a canon/semi-canon source (writer/producer commentary), vs. an entirely non-canon source (novels). The choice of which to believe seems pretty clear to me. Roundeyesamurai 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) MKB- Which foreign translations identify Shelby from DS9 as "him"? This is important, because in some languages, it is customary to refer to a person of unknown sex as "he" (English, in fact, being one such language). Also, in some societies (and some military organizations), a person in authority is referred to with male pronouns, regardless of gender. Roundeyesamurai 04:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I think we all need to have a few things clarified about "the two" Shelbys - 1) RDM states that the intent was for "Captain Shelby" to be the same as "Commander Shelby" from BOBW; 2) Peter David's books are NOT canon. Based on this, including a statement that the two Shelbys are likely one and the same isn't a "speculation", it's a reasonable deduction based on the facts presented. Roundeyesamurai 00:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC) :Ronald D. Moore also later stated that the two Shelby's could just as well be different -- and Peter David's books explain that comment away just fine, despite not being canon. :I removed the "the reader should assume" comment because we are not a vehicle for speculation -- please don't tell the reader what they should do under any circumstances.. :tell them what could be true. (as in "it could be the same person, or it could be a similarly named person..) :The separate section is to allow for the ambiguity, the background note is to explain it, not to prove or disprove it. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Mike, in this article you have consistently applied the most specious reasoning I have yet seen on this website. Let's examine each and every one of your statements in your post: 1) RDM stated that the viewer is "free to look at this either way"- and made this statement only AFTER discovering that he had created a conflict on the issue with Peter David. A novel is NOT CANON, NOT EVIDENCE OF CANONICAL INTENT, AND DOES NOT SUPPLEMENT CANON. Period. 2) You also removed my "the reader may assume" statement. In other words, you've removed ANY statement to the effect that the two character MAY be one and the same. The statement that the reader MAY assume is NOT SPECULATION. IT IS DEDUCTION. IT IS A DEDUCTION BASED ON THE WRITER'S INTENT, and the only "disagreement" is FROM A NON-CANON NOVEL. 3) See above. 4) No-one is attempting to prove or disprove anything here- except for you, by removing any trace of information which states anything other than "There are two Shelbys". You are attempting to enforce your OPINION and your SPECULATION as statements of fact, and you are utilizing NON-CANON NOVELS as "evidence" while dismissing CANON information and WRITER'S INTENTION. I am going to revert your edit. Roundeyesamurai 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC) ::First off, I don't like this tone. I don't think you are going to get a productive discussion addressing this to me in the personal. ::Please do not characterize me by my judgement (re: specious). This is a personal comment and does not reflect what we are discussing. It has made me conclude that there is irrationality present here. ::# Ronald D. Moore stated that the viewer should be allowed to look at this "either way" -- this is why i am removing notes from archivists stating that we should look at this one way or another. Stop adding such comments ::#We should re-add a "reader may assume" statement if you feel so strongly about it. What made you think you couldn't? What I removed was a "reader should assume" statement. Do you recognize the difference between stating someone should do something, and stating that someone may do something? Its an important distinction those of us familiar with English should be familiar with. ::#A deduction is the conclusion of speculation. Do you need a dictionary? My making a deduction, you are engaging in speculation. I'm trying to draw a line in the speculation, and it ends up altering the language of your supposed (one-sided) "deduction". ::# I'm not trying to "prove" anything either.. i was removing language that recommended one of the two possibilities over the other. What don't you understand about that ::This article also does not need a long explanation of the term canon. By stating the novel is "non-canon", we have allowed the reader to link and understand. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Hidden Frontier Reference I am taking out the Hidden Frontier reference. Its non-canon, and not even part of the franchise.Jaz 05:06, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) :yeah, remove the garbage to fan films or something -- Captain M.K.B. 03:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Title Should her title be change in the opening paragraph to match her last known rank? I'm unsure of the protocol. Jaf 01:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf :We're also unsure of her actual last-known rank, according to the background information surrounding Captain Shelby. I'd leave it be for now -- Captain M.K.B. 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC) problems with "Background" I recommend changing this text, for reasons stated above: ::Writing staff member Ronald D. Moore has commented http://www.trekweb.com/RonDMoore/Ron_Moore_12_5_97.txt that the character of Captain Shelby of the ''Sutherland was meant to be a reference to the continuing career of the "Best of Both Worlds" commander, although this was never directly stated. ::The ''Star Trek: New Frontier series of novels has Shelby as a major character who spent much of the Dominion War in a temporal shift, precluding her from being the "You Are Cordially Invited..." character. Peter David wrote passages into a later novel explaining that there were two unrelated Shelbys in Starfleet, but this is non-canon supposition and comes from a non-canon source, and may be canonically disregarded. ::Based on Ronald Moore's statements, and the fact that Peter David's books are non-canon, it can be presumed that "Captain Shelby" of the ''Sutherland is, in fact, the same Shelby from The Best of Both Worlds. Why do we need to say "non-canon" so many times? do you think readers are stupid? A simpler explanation would be a lot easier to phrase Why do we need to cite Ronald Moore to state that a presumption is possible? They have very little to do with it. Why do we need to keep removing Ronald Moore's later admission that the characters could either be the same or separate? Is it because that statement contradicts the conclusion that the readers are supposed to draw? doesn't that mean that we are speculating that they are the same, and that, in accordance to that speculation, we are removing evidence to the contrary that does very well exist? Keep in mind that neither case was stated in the episode, so either conclusion ("same person" '''or' "different person") would be speculatory! -- Captain M.K.B. 18:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC) protection Because of the many reversions, the page Shelby is now locked from editing. I was trying to add a note that other archivists could refine, not revert. If you wanted to correct some points of language, rather than a complete reversion, then that would have avoided the page being under dispute. As it stands now, I think its important that we recognize canon -- the DS9 episode is the only canon facet of the discussion, and it is open ended. There has been no canon declaration of "who" the Captain Shelby really is. The writer of that episode has stated first that they were meant to be the same, and then, later, that they could be different. So thats no help -- neither of his statements are "canon", and they are contradictory and indefinite. recognize that "they may be thought of as the same person" does not mean "they should be thought of as the same person" (conversely, "they may not ''' be thought of as the same person" does not mean "they '''should not be thought of as the same person") i think the article as it stands is sufficient to introduce the reader to both possibilities, and summarize all the canon info. i'll take suggestions for refining further on the talk page. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC) :In other words, you've locked it so that no-one can alter it so as to disagree with you. Readers, feel free to view my talk page for more on this subject. Roundeyesamurai 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC) This comment iss off topic, has nothing to do with the article -- save your accusations for someone who cares, and a different talk page. You don't seem to have any input on how the note should be rephrased.. am i to take this as you think that the article is fine how it is? i think the article as it stands is sufficient to introduce the reader to both possibilities, and summarize all the canon info. i'll take suggestions for refining further on the talk page. -- Captain M.K.B. 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ::My thoughts on this subject would be to assume it is the same character unless given evidance that it is a different character, because to do otherwise means we are going to have to do the same with other characters. And there are endless situations where a reference has been made to a character by name that could be debated in this fashion. Jaf 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf :::This is a growing trend on all wiki sources recently. Moderators protecting pages because their opinion is one of the minority... There is INSUFFICIENT ON SCREEN or Canoninically accepted proof that Elizabeth Paula Shelby is the Captain Shelby described in the Deep Space Nine episode. This page now is displaying a blatant lie and should be deleted if this protection is not removed and the comment returned to that of a speculatory nature. The main argument that everyone seems to be overlooking is the simple fact that there can be more then 1 shelby in Starfleet, of the command ranks. :::Look at it this way, in the population of 19 million of Australia, there are 13,000 Williams families living in the country, very few of them are actually related. In the Australian armed forces, there are 21 Williams' holding an officer rank. In the fictional population of the Federation, with trillions of sentients and millions of Starfleet officers, why does there have to be only ONE Shelby? - 59.167.8.24 04:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ::::Who is Elizabeth Paula Shelby? --Alan del Beccio 04:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC) :::::No idea. I am not even sure what the problem is anymore. The background states that it is possible that the two Shelby's are not one and the same. Oh well, I guess I should stop expecting humans to be as rational as Klingons. --OuroborosCobra 05:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ::::::For the record, from what I can tell, the article was protected because of constant editing, allowing the community to talk about this issue without putting a workload on the database. It had nothing to do with opposing viewpoints. Perhaps if certain users brought it up for discussion here and waited to see what other people had to say – like they're supposed to do – rather than repeatedly reverting an article to the state which they believe to be correct – which they're not supposed to do – then maybe protecting the article wouldn't be necessary. ::::::Now, having said that, I think the way the article is at the moment is just fine. The alternative would be to give Captain shelby her own article, with background information stating the origin. As has been explained above, since Moore stated it was meant to be her and later stated it may not be her, it could go either way, so the one thing we can't do is say that the Shelby seen in BoBW was, without a doubt, the captain referenced in YACI. --From Andoria with Love 07:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ::::::: Note: I used "Elizabeth Paula" as a qualifier for the Shelby we know from BOBW, since that's a commonly known name for her outside of canon. - 59.167.8.24 08:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC) I don't mind us allowing for two characters here as long as we also do it on other pages, such as the VOY and TOS background characters. I don't see why this page should get special treatment. Jaf 12:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf :Which characters in particular are you referring to? Ambiguous officer names out of a million officers, with a common surname? or characters we KNOW are obviously the same ones? Like a small pool of Maquis names on a ship of 150? By your logic, you would want to join Ensign Janeway of the Enterprise and Admiral Janeway of Voyager because no two people in existance could possibly share the surname "Janeway" - 59.167.8.24 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ::I'm just saying that whatever way we do it we have to do it the same in all cases and not pick and choose which ones are the same and which ones are different. I'd support a disambiguous approach as long as it's consistently enforced. Jaf 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Jaf